Adam Gilchrist is considered by many as the greatest wicketkeeper-batsman in Test history, and rightly so. AB de Villiers (1482 runs at 58 as wicketkeeper) might eventually challenge him for the spot. But if we look at the numbers alone, Andy Flower is Gilchrist's only serious rival for this honour. Seventeen Test hundreds, 5570 Test runs at 47.60, the ability to destroy bowling attacks and the skill to keep with distinction to Lee's lightning pace, Warne's guile and MacGill's exaggerated turn, make Gilchrist's claim in both departments a strong one. No other player comes close. Kumar Sangakkara (3117 runs at 40.48 as wicketkeeper) might have challenged Gilchrist, but Sri Lanka chose to relieve him of keeping duties for good in 2008, and the results have been spectacular (7440 runs at 68 in 70 Tests).

In Ashes Tests, it is a different story. England, India and Sri Lanka were Gilchrist's toughest opponents in Tests. Overall, his record against England is wonderful. But I would argue that Brad Haddin has an even better one.

Haddin and Gilchrist in Ashes Tests

Haddin

Gilchrist

Matches

19

20

Innings

33

28

Runs

1337

1083

Average

43.1

45.1

Strike-rate

61.8

92.0

Centuries

3

3

Fifties

11

6

Team average

33.7

42.8

Median first-innings score at which innings began, batting first

138 (ten inn)

438 (7 inn)

Median first-innings score at which innings began, fielding first

112 (nine inn)

230 (13 inn)

Median score in all innings at which innings began

143

243

Haddin has made more Ashes runs than Gilchrist. The comparison in the table above also shows that Haddin has been more central to Australia's batting when he played than Gilchrist was. Australia did not need Gilchrist to bat twice in 60% of his 20 Ashes Tests. For Haddin, this figure is 26%. Haddin was marginally more consistent with the bat than Gilchrist, reaching fifty 14 times in 33 innings, compared to Gilchrist's nine in 28 innings.

Haddin and Gilchrist have uncannily similar Ashes histories. Each has played four Ashes series and had one poor series in England. For Gilchrist it was the 2005 tour. For Haddin it was the 2013 tour. Both made Test hundreds in their first, second and fourth series. But the similarity ends there. The Australian Ashes sides that these two wicketkeepers played in were very different from each other.

When Australia batted first, the median first-innings score at which Adam Gilchrist walked in to bat was 408 for 5. The lowest Australian score that brought Gilchrist to the wicket was 87 for 5 at Lord's in 2005. He made 26. On another occasion, Gilchrist walked in at 172 for 5 in Perth in 2006, and made 0. In the other five instances, the lowest score was 355 for 5 at Leeds in 2001.

When Australia batted first, the median score at which Haddin walked in to bat is 138 for 5. Of ten Australian first innings, seven saw Haddin walk in to bat with a score of 156 or less. He reached 50 five times in those seven innings.

When Australia fielded first, the median first-innings score at which Gilchrist walked in to bat was 230. In five of 13 instances in Ashes Tests in which Australia fielded first, they already had a first-innings lead by the time Gilchrist entered. In Sydney in 2003, Gilchrist played arguably his greatest Ashes innings, making 133 in 121 balls after coming in to bat at 150 for 5 in response to England's first innings of 362.

When Australia fielded first, the median first-innings score at which Haddin walked in to bat was 112. Australia were still trailing seven out of nine times.

In third innings of Ashes Tests, Gilchrist batted three times, with Australia having leads of 290, 359 and 394 already on the board. In the last of these three instances, in Perth in 2006, he made a brutal 102 not out in 59 balls.

In third innings of Ashes Tests, Haddin has a poor record, but he typically batted with Australia well on top. Apart from his promotion to No. 4 at The Oval in 2013, Australia's lowest lead when Haddin started his innings in the third innings of an Ashes Test was 268. In addition to this, Haddin also batted three times in the third innings with Australia still trailing. This was in Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney in the 2010-11 Ashes. Australia lost all three games.

In Ashes matches when he batted in the fourth innings, Gilchrist played in one win, one draw and two defeats. In the win he walked in with 17 required (the target was 107). In the draw, he walked in at 165 for 4 at Old Trafford in 2005, a promotion that was seen at the time as an Australian push to win on the fifth day. But Gilchrist made 4 in 30 balls. In the two defeats, he walked in with 148 and 343 to win, and made 1 and 37.

Haddin had two realistic opportunities to force Australian wins in five fourth innings. At Trent Bridge in 2013, he walked in with Australia needing 150 more to win. He shepherded the Australian innings to within 14 runs of the target before being the last man out for 71. In the fourth Test of that series, Australia reached 168 for 2, chasing 299 in Chester-le-Street, before collapsing to 224 all out. Haddin was one of Stuart Broad's victims for 4.

Haddin's batting was more important to the Australian Ashes sides he played in than Gilchrist's was to Waugh's and Ponting's sides. Gilchrist was clearly the more brilliant, explosive batsman, but Australia could have done without his runs. Had they played a wicketkeeper like Healy in Gilchrist's place in those Ashes series, they still would have won. The same cannot be said of Haddin. Be it taking Australia to respectability in otherwise brittle first innings, or setting up declarations, Haddin's counter-attacking style was crucial to his team's fortunes.

When future historians look back at the Ashes, they will almost certainly give Gilchrist a lot of attention. He had an illustrious career as a wicketkeeper-batsman in Tests beyond the Ashes. Haddin has been something of an Ashes specialist for Australia, playing 19 of his 54 Tests so far against England (Australia have played 71 Tests since Haddin's debut in 2008). Haddin also wouldn't make too many all-time Australian Ashes teams, but perhaps the choice between Haddin and Gilchrist is not as clear cut as one might think.

Gilchrist tasted more Ashes success than Haddin, but I suggest that the three Ashes series Gilchrist won had already been won before he came to the wicket. His keeping to Warne, Lee, McGrath, Gillespie, Bichel and others was far more important than his runs. His greatest Ashes innings came in a dead rubber in Sydney with Australia 4-0 up. This is as it should be. In any good Test team, the wicketkeeper's ability to make runs should be a bonus. In Haddin's case, this was not always so, especially in the ten Tests in 2013, his batting at No. 7 has been crucial time and again, often saving a faltering first innings.

Perhaps Gilchrist's record will prompt historians to wonder to what extent he was able to play like he did precisely because Australia didn't depend on his batting. Could Gilchrist have played the same way if he had been used as one of the top six batsmen? He rarely was. He batted 14 times at No. 6, compared to 100 times at No. 7 in Tests. Gilchrist clearly had the ability to bat in the top order. He played his greatest Test innings at No. 3, in my view. But like Kallis the bowler, was Gilchrist the batsman basically a luxury?

As someone who played Test cricket late in his first-class career, in the shadow of the greatest wicketkeeper-batsmen of all, Haddin may not interest too many Ashes historians. But if Haddin and Gilchrist are judged based on what they did in the Ashes, and not just based on how much ability they had, then Haddin comes out just ahead, in my view.

Haddin seems like a nice guy and a pretty decent keeper/bat (probably the 3rd maybe 4th best of the current crop) but this comparison - despite being limited to Ashes - is asking for trouble!

Even if Gilly overstayed his test welcome by about a year and had a better top order (meaning he could often face tired bowlers), he was a massive contributing factor in the formulation of a GREAT team

a
on January 14, 2014, 0:39 GMT

The comparison is silly, cuz the answer is Gilly! But my heart it did gladden, that the Poms were beaten by Haddin! Sorry, for the poor attempt at poetry..but its true that bringing Haddin in to the squad made huge difference. Having closely watched Matt Wade during it the India series, it was clear that the wk/batsman position was a a major weakness in the aussie side.

Dummy4
on January 13, 2014, 17:44 GMT

I guess the fact that distinguishes the two is Impact. Both players are great in their own right and scored when needed , but the fact that one session of Gilly could take the score from 180 for five to 330 for 5 compared to haddin taking it to 250 for 5 makes all the difference in the psyche of the opponent.The strike rate in the above table says it all.Also the quality of this rising Aussie test team is considerably better in scoring than it was with Gilly thanks mainly to the advent of T20 tournaments like IPL and Big Bash League.

Vaughan
on January 13, 2014, 16:03 GMT

I must confess to a certain bias against this author due to her suggestion (rightly or wrongly) that Kallis wasnt a true allrounder but a batter who bowled a bit! (Sorry!). The issue with this and the Kallis article is that cricket contains so many stats that they can be used in different ways for different messages. I appreciate the fresh perspective both articles provide (and the challenge) but both seem to penalise the protoganists (Gilchrist and Kallis) for being in too powerful a team. Kallis bowled less because there were enough other world class quicks to do the business. Gilly appears "less important" to the team because of how strong the rest of the Oz team was. Unfair to blame it on them. Personally its a nobrainer- Gillly over Haddin. The stats and strike rate spell it out in no uncertain times.

Dummy4
on January 13, 2014, 13:13 GMT

im flabbergasted one on the the best... if not THE best wicketkeeper bastmen of all time isn't mentioned here. A. Flower...A bloke who av 51.50 in one of the weakest test sides the world has seen. imagine if he had support. Sangakarra record is amazing. No question Gilchrist was fortunate to play in a superior side... It was his destructiveness that make shim one of the greats. not average or how high his team was ranked to help his cause. i'd rather have A. flower in my team than Gilchrist... as sacrilegious as that sound from an aussie!

siddhartha
on January 13, 2014, 11:23 GMT

I have seen GIlly demolish strong south african pace attack like no one else did.Gilly for life!!

N.
on January 13, 2014, 11:10 GMT

Haddin is a good player, but Gilchrist is an all time great. I would pick Gilchrist in ANY team ahead of Haddin. Gilchrist obviously had the luxury of a better top order, but he showed throughout his career that the match situation did not effect how he played. He batted the same no matter what. At the end of the day he is a superior player to Haddin. So he always plays ahead of him, no matter the opponent

Dummy4
on January 13, 2014, 10:52 GMT

Boys & girls 2 fantastic cricketers, let's just enjoy both of them 4 who they are because make no mistake 1 is an absolute legend & the other is a very very good test cricketer !

ali
on January 13, 2014, 10:13 GMT

please compare dravid's and tendulkar's records against england and australia and decide who should be picked for whom. Gilchrist is a better player and keeper than Haddin!

Suchendra
on January 13, 2014, 3:42 GMT

Silly Comparison!! To me it looks like comparing street player with cricket legend Adam Gilchrist!!

mahjut
on January 16, 2014, 16:22 GMT

Haddin seems like a nice guy and a pretty decent keeper/bat (probably the 3rd maybe 4th best of the current crop) but this comparison - despite being limited to Ashes - is asking for trouble!

Even if Gilly overstayed his test welcome by about a year and had a better top order (meaning he could often face tired bowlers), he was a massive contributing factor in the formulation of a GREAT team

a
on January 14, 2014, 0:39 GMT

The comparison is silly, cuz the answer is Gilly! But my heart it did gladden, that the Poms were beaten by Haddin! Sorry, for the poor attempt at poetry..but its true that bringing Haddin in to the squad made huge difference. Having closely watched Matt Wade during it the India series, it was clear that the wk/batsman position was a a major weakness in the aussie side.

Dummy4
on January 13, 2014, 17:44 GMT

I guess the fact that distinguishes the two is Impact. Both players are great in their own right and scored when needed , but the fact that one session of Gilly could take the score from 180 for five to 330 for 5 compared to haddin taking it to 250 for 5 makes all the difference in the psyche of the opponent.The strike rate in the above table says it all.Also the quality of this rising Aussie test team is considerably better in scoring than it was with Gilly thanks mainly to the advent of T20 tournaments like IPL and Big Bash League.

Vaughan
on January 13, 2014, 16:03 GMT

I must confess to a certain bias against this author due to her suggestion (rightly or wrongly) that Kallis wasnt a true allrounder but a batter who bowled a bit! (Sorry!). The issue with this and the Kallis article is that cricket contains so many stats that they can be used in different ways for different messages. I appreciate the fresh perspective both articles provide (and the challenge) but both seem to penalise the protoganists (Gilchrist and Kallis) for being in too powerful a team. Kallis bowled less because there were enough other world class quicks to do the business. Gilly appears "less important" to the team because of how strong the rest of the Oz team was. Unfair to blame it on them. Personally its a nobrainer- Gillly over Haddin. The stats and strike rate spell it out in no uncertain times.

Dummy4
on January 13, 2014, 13:13 GMT

im flabbergasted one on the the best... if not THE best wicketkeeper bastmen of all time isn't mentioned here. A. Flower...A bloke who av 51.50 in one of the weakest test sides the world has seen. imagine if he had support. Sangakarra record is amazing. No question Gilchrist was fortunate to play in a superior side... It was his destructiveness that make shim one of the greats. not average or how high his team was ranked to help his cause. i'd rather have A. flower in my team than Gilchrist... as sacrilegious as that sound from an aussie!

siddhartha
on January 13, 2014, 11:23 GMT

I have seen GIlly demolish strong south african pace attack like no one else did.Gilly for life!!

N.
on January 13, 2014, 11:10 GMT

Haddin is a good player, but Gilchrist is an all time great. I would pick Gilchrist in ANY team ahead of Haddin. Gilchrist obviously had the luxury of a better top order, but he showed throughout his career that the match situation did not effect how he played. He batted the same no matter what. At the end of the day he is a superior player to Haddin. So he always plays ahead of him, no matter the opponent

Dummy4
on January 13, 2014, 10:52 GMT

Boys & girls 2 fantastic cricketers, let's just enjoy both of them 4 who they are because make no mistake 1 is an absolute legend & the other is a very very good test cricketer !

ali
on January 13, 2014, 10:13 GMT

please compare dravid's and tendulkar's records against england and australia and decide who should be picked for whom. Gilchrist is a better player and keeper than Haddin!

Suchendra
on January 13, 2014, 3:42 GMT

Silly Comparison!! To me it looks like comparing street player with cricket legend Adam Gilchrist!!

Jonathan
on January 13, 2014, 1:05 GMT

Actually, the best and most important innings of Haddin's was his 94 on the first day of the first Test. It changed the whole series - without him, Australia would have been all out 150/180, huge confidence knock after winning the toss and batting, England get the best batting conditions of the day and knock up about 100/1 because the Aussie bowlers would be nowhere near so fast or accurate, Johnson gets erratic, the other bowlers get over-bowled and begin to tire on the second day, England get a big lead, Aussie batting crumbles under pressure in the second innings, England win, Johnson gets dropped for the next match, and probably so do a few Aussie batsmen, that wins the Adelaide match for England too, England would be 2-0 up before Australia knew what hit them...

Instead, the fact that they pretty much got out of jail - and Johnson getting one lucky wicket after bowling a pile of filth early on - gave them the confidence, and one good spell destroyed England's nerve instead.

Dummy4
on January 13, 2014, 0:36 GMT

yes I agree with the posts above Haddin is a very good player and has been great for Australia in the current series BUT gilchrist has a higher average and higher strikerate.
He could win a match with his own bat in a way Haddin couldnt .England always feared Gilchrist and what he could do .
Gilly could be argued was an even better one day player . He didnt make the test team until 28 so he could have an even better test record had he started earlier .
so stats dont always tell the whole story .. Look at 2001 ASHES in UK to find Gillys domination of England especially his 152 in 1st test .

Kush
on January 12, 2014, 18:00 GMT

Brad Haddin had an outstanding Ashes series especially coming in under pressure time and again. But Gilchrist had that x-factor. The same thing that Viv Richards had even if there were other great batsman with higher averages. Or Ian Botham. He was someone that could make people stop whatever they were doing to watch the action unfolding. Also, Gilchrist would bat exactly the same way irrespective of team position. He knew only one way to play. Who can forget his innings against Pakistan in partnership with Justin Langer in his 3rd or 4th Test? And there were many others to follow. When another Gilly comes along, we will all know. Until then all comparisons are somewhat artificial IMHO. Having said that, Haddin can be very proud of his achievements in the recently concluded series

Dummy4
on January 12, 2014, 14:42 GMT

Come on now, get serious. Look at that Strike rate and then look at that average. How can you say Haddin is more consistent when gilly has a better average? Moreover, if you did watch the recently concluded ashes series closely, a deflated english team let of Haddin on at least 3 - 4 occasions albeit a couple of them being difficult chances. But still, the number of rash shots haddin got away were just too many. Also please note that, gilly had to face english bowlers like freddie and harmison who steamed in at 90+ mph. the speeds haddin faced from broad and anderson are no where as threatening.

Nix
on January 12, 2014, 14:03 GMT

Goodness, comparing haddin with gilchrist! This is a clear indication of how the current aus test team is being overhyped

K.
on January 12, 2014, 8:56 GMT

I think all this "good player in weak team" stuff picked up more steam due to Lara. As in to somehow enhance his stats or stature. The facts are - The weak team may actually inspire a player to give of his best. Tendulkar had his best years in the 1999s, Lara in the mid 2000s when their respective teams were the weakest. A Viv/Gilly produced their best often with the chips down. Not when their teams were cruising. This entire "weak team" thing is a dead horse which has been whipped into oblivion.

Rajesh
on January 12, 2014, 7:12 GMT

During Gilchrist period, top order batsmen got as good as many runs. So, Gilchrist has no work to do.
But Haddin period, top order batsmen fails many times to get run and Haddin has the chance to rescue them.

It is the difference between them.

Heath
on January 12, 2014, 2:11 GMT

Gilchrist played against much better English sides.

Dummy4
on January 11, 2014, 22:20 GMT

@straightdrive I guess its that the Ashes are always 5 match series which is the ulitmate test of the players. Once a player (Say Harris) gets an edge over another player (Cook) that player (Cook) has to face him again and again there is nowhere to hide.

With the increasing rise of two match series its not the same test. That said I am not excited by the prospect of another Ashes next year. After 10 tests this year I can't help feel its overkill

Dummy
on January 11, 2014, 16:53 GMT

In a single phrase, Gilchrist was a much more capable and destructive batsman than Hayden, but Hayden even with his limited skill set has played more important innings for his team than Gilchrist. This is more because of the difference in batting quality of their sides.
If someone would suggest that Australia would clean sweep even without him, they need to see the score line every time he used to come and bat in first innings in
recent ashes, take average per wicket and add it to remaining wickets, get aussie total and then compare it with England first innings total. Believe me, you critics would be surprised at the equation.

Steve
on January 11, 2014, 16:38 GMT

While Haddin looks marginally better than Gilchrist based on majority of stats, I look at the strike rates as well. Gilchrist's is an unbelievable 92! Would have been great for ODIs alone, bur for tests, that is top class. His high strike rate meant even in high scoring games, he gave his bowlers more time to get the opposition out. Hence, I place Adam higher over Haddin.

Dummy4
on January 11, 2014, 12:43 GMT

It is not how many you score, it is also about how you score. This is where Gilly is streets ahead of not only Haddin , but even more accomplished batsmen. Can Haddin ( or for that matter most of the other specialist batsmen) play the kind of innings that Gilly played in Mumbai in 2001 to turn a test match in a session, or hit a double century of furious majesty against SA or hit the second fastest test hundred, or come one down and hit a century on a turner against Murali in Sri Lanka??? The list goes on and on.

Ravi
on January 11, 2014, 10:43 GMT

Whatever Haddin did in 2009 or 2010/11 was pretty much useless in the context of the series. He was immense in 2013/14. Having said that, the way Midge (& Harris) bowled, England would've still succumbed in the end. Maybe not 5-0, but Australia would've still won without Haddin.

Ravi
on January 11, 2014, 10:38 GMT

"Perhaps Gilchrist's record will prompt historians to wonder to what extent he was able to play like he did precisely because Australia didn't depend on his batting."

I just got a call from Hobart with an area code of 149! Hold on, I have a few other missed calls too: Mumbai 122, Trent Bridge 54, Perth 83, Cape Town 138, Durban 91, Kandy 144, Darwin 80, Perth 69, Christchurch 121, Sydney 94, Sydney 86, Fatullah 144 (the embarrassment from that match would've made the under-arm incident a proud moment in Australian cricket history), Sydney 62 ....

I honestly believe Gilchrist would've averaged in the mid 50s if he had to bat at 5-70 more often in his career. In fact, even his first few first-class 100s came from low scores like that. He threw away his wicket so many times when Australia were well on top.

Pre-Ashes 2005 Gilly rescued Australia almost every time, with a few exceptions against India.

Dummy
on January 11, 2014, 8:42 GMT

Just comparing stats is too narrow minded....
The role of GILLY was often to attack and run away with the initiative....
HADDIN has had to do damage control....
They have done their roles perfectly...

But,gilly probably has been a more all round contributor...considering wicket keeping with warne,lee and co...he was an exceptional keeper
haddin hasnt been a special keeper....

Dummy4
on January 11, 2014, 8:17 GMT

Denis Lindsay. Then Dennis Lindsay.

sreekumar
on January 11, 2014, 7:57 GMT

oh common........gilly is such a great player can decimate any attack on any kind of pitches...haddin never comes closer...

nikhil
on January 11, 2014, 6:48 GMT

Correct me if i'm wrong but this whole Ashes thing is still test cricket right? There's literally not a single reason to place more emphasis on Ashes records when selecting someone for the Ashes especially when it constitutes just 5 test matches every two years where as the average Aussie player plays what 15 non ashes tests every two years

James
on January 11, 2014, 6:29 GMT

For an Ashes, you would have to take Hadds over Gilly. It's almost as if Haddin saves his best for the English and has delivered every time. He has scored a hundred on every first test of the ashes he has played except this year where he got a 94!

Kush
on January 12, 2014, 18:00 GMT

Brad Haddin had an outstanding Ashes series especially coming in under pressure time and again. But Gilchrist had that x-factor. The same thing that Viv Richards had even if there were other great batsman with higher averages. Or Ian Botham. He was someone that could make people stop whatever they were doing to watch the action unfolding. Also, Gilchrist would bat exactly the same way irrespective of team position. He knew only one way to play. Who can forget his innings against Pakistan in partnership with Justin Langer in his 3rd or 4th Test? And there were many others to follow. When another Gilly comes along, we will all know. Until then all comparisons are somewhat artificial IMHO. Having said that, Haddin can be very proud of his achievements in the recently concluded series

James
on January 11, 2014, 6:29 GMT

For an Ashes, you would have to take Hadds over Gilly. It's almost as if Haddin saves his best for the English and has delivered every time. He has scored a hundred on every first test of the ashes he has played except this year where he got a 94!

nikhil
on January 11, 2014, 6:48 GMT

Correct me if i'm wrong but this whole Ashes thing is still test cricket right? There's literally not a single reason to place more emphasis on Ashes records when selecting someone for the Ashes especially when it constitutes just 5 test matches every two years where as the average Aussie player plays what 15 non ashes tests every two years

sreekumar
on January 11, 2014, 7:57 GMT

oh common........gilly is such a great player can decimate any attack on any kind of pitches...haddin never comes closer...

Dummy4
on January 11, 2014, 8:17 GMT

Denis Lindsay. Then Dennis Lindsay.

Dummy
on January 11, 2014, 8:42 GMT

Just comparing stats is too narrow minded....
The role of GILLY was often to attack and run away with the initiative....
HADDIN has had to do damage control....
They have done their roles perfectly...

But,gilly probably has been a more all round contributor...considering wicket keeping with warne,lee and co...he was an exceptional keeper
haddin hasnt been a special keeper....

Ravi
on January 11, 2014, 10:38 GMT

"Perhaps Gilchrist's record will prompt historians to wonder to what extent he was able to play like he did precisely because Australia didn't depend on his batting."

I just got a call from Hobart with an area code of 149! Hold on, I have a few other missed calls too: Mumbai 122, Trent Bridge 54, Perth 83, Cape Town 138, Durban 91, Kandy 144, Darwin 80, Perth 69, Christchurch 121, Sydney 94, Sydney 86, Fatullah 144 (the embarrassment from that match would've made the under-arm incident a proud moment in Australian cricket history), Sydney 62 ....

I honestly believe Gilchrist would've averaged in the mid 50s if he had to bat at 5-70 more often in his career. In fact, even his first few first-class 100s came from low scores like that. He threw away his wicket so many times when Australia were well on top.

Pre-Ashes 2005 Gilly rescued Australia almost every time, with a few exceptions against India.

Ravi
on January 11, 2014, 10:43 GMT

Whatever Haddin did in 2009 or 2010/11 was pretty much useless in the context of the series. He was immense in 2013/14. Having said that, the way Midge (& Harris) bowled, England would've still succumbed in the end. Maybe not 5-0, but Australia would've still won without Haddin.

Dummy4
on January 11, 2014, 12:43 GMT

It is not how many you score, it is also about how you score. This is where Gilly is streets ahead of not only Haddin , but even more accomplished batsmen. Can Haddin ( or for that matter most of the other specialist batsmen) play the kind of innings that Gilly played in Mumbai in 2001 to turn a test match in a session, or hit a double century of furious majesty against SA or hit the second fastest test hundred, or come one down and hit a century on a turner against Murali in Sri Lanka??? The list goes on and on.

Steve
on January 11, 2014, 16:38 GMT

While Haddin looks marginally better than Gilchrist based on majority of stats, I look at the strike rates as well. Gilchrist's is an unbelievable 92! Would have been great for ODIs alone, bur for tests, that is top class. His high strike rate meant even in high scoring games, he gave his bowlers more time to get the opposition out. Hence, I place Adam higher over Haddin.

Dummy
on January 11, 2014, 16:53 GMT

In a single phrase, Gilchrist was a much more capable and destructive batsman than Hayden, but Hayden even with his limited skill set has played more important innings for his team than Gilchrist. This is more because of the difference in batting quality of their sides.
If someone would suggest that Australia would clean sweep even without him, they need to see the score line every time he used to come and bat in first innings in
recent ashes, take average per wicket and add it to remaining wickets, get aussie total and then compare it with England first innings total. Believe me, you critics would be surprised at the equation.

ABOUT COOKIES

We use cookies to help make this website better, to improve our services and for advertising purposes. You can learn more about our use of cookies and change your browser settings in order to avoid cookies by clicking here. Otherwise, we'll assume you are OK to continue.